abroadcom - listening to North America since 2009

I was reading this article about the convoluted use of the term libertarianism by Neo-Cons all over North-America and commented on facebook, so these statements emerged. I am publishing here in hope of outlining some historic facts, trying 2 tie some things 2gether and sort through some rather arbitrary ugliness. And trust me, I’m just trying 2 get through this without getting hurt. Calling it like I see it, the new name of the game.

A friend of mine: “Start with the headline…Bastardized libertarianism. That is incorrect. Libertarianism has not been bastardized. It was always wrong, right from the start. It still exists in its pure form and it is still wrong. It is and always had been a thinly guised pseudo philosophy to justify selfishness. The problem from the start has been its name, which is a bastardization of the terms liberty and liberalism, yet it does not stand for that. A political philosophy must represent a definition that is for the greater good. That has been the rule at least since the time of Plato. Libertarianism has never done that, therefore it is not a political philosophy. Too many people are confused by the etymology of the term which hints at both liberalism and liberty, while the pseudo philosophy of libertarianism has never been about either concept. Think of people who are or were libertarians and you will see a list of people who have something to lose in any other political ideology. Steven Harper, Ron Paul and his son Rand (named after Ron Paul’s heroine and probable lover Ayn Rand, John Wayne, all members of the National Rifleman’s Association. Ye judge a tree by its fruit.”

This is my response, enjoy:

I dread somebody come and arrest me in the middle of the night 4 my facebook posts, but I won’t just trot along 2 my Schaffott, excuse me, my history teachers made me understand how bad it is 4 democracy AND for your own life 2 only obey and hope 4 the better – that is how my people murdered 9 million of their own in a civil war that was so one-sided and viciously executed that it only qualifies 4 murder – 2 defend 1self against whoever will try 2 remove those individuals from their land or property – THAT is also part of the libertarian, republican tradition, in order 2 defend it against the ever mighty feudal ruler, in the name of your own freedom, your right 2 be free from any ARBITRARY state oppression or intrusion, literally, 2 break free from any “kingdom”. And the more I see this black water rising, the more I’d like 2 learn how 2 best defend myself. This is why we need 2 stop the speculators – they r removing us from our property. U missed out on some important periods of time teaching us the following, my friend: Because of feudalism in Europe, when workers and farmers were not owning their land, people starved, were attacked randomly and never could make it in2 any wealth coz the royal rulers skimmed it up b4 it amounted 2 anything substantial. It was theirs by law. THAT IS WHY so many white people came 2 America, THE PROMISED LAND! And they were given land upon arrival – never known prosperity 4 many, apart from pain et misère 4/with First Nations of the area. The north American constitutions were subsequently fundamentally different – any American were 2 own their land – property rights r institutionalized as we all know. The black water tide rising in front of us all is trying 2 erode that, 2, becoz property is such a huge value in America and it’s protected by our own right 2 defend it – in some states that means by the aid of a gun – I mean, u can say what u want about the careless availability and distribution of hand guns in the US – but I am somehow not under the impression that the government thugs rising with the black tide r gonna engage with me in a lengthy discussion about my rights. U gotte see what’s coming, dear. I hate guns, but I won’t fall without a fight, I can assure u that. Right now finding appropriate words 2 tell it like it is is my way of fighting these brutal thugs not bound by any accountability.

Self defense – fundamentally different from attacking somebody 2 take with force what u want from them, even under Canadian law. See, the people u mention embrace that part of republican credo 4 different reasons, it seems twisted and bigot 2 observe Neo-Cons extrapolating onto foreign soil or inner-societal scapegoats such as jews or muslims by default (“they r threatening our freedoms”) – it used to be part of a new world libertarianism – now it seems all those terms r tinted and laden with bitter tasting, brutal connotations. If u like Plato, then u may know the meaning of “republic” (which was also the title of 1 of Plato’s dialogues with Socrates): it stems from the Latin term, “res publica” (with a big shout out 2 my ever so patient Latin teacher), “affairs of the people”, or “public affairs” in opposition 2 a monarchy, where the ruler is almighty and not bound by a constitution. I mean THAT arbitrariness we (some very brave lords who probably had some ego-ambitions of their own if I remember correctly) managed 2 tame over 700 years ago already – even the king’s orders were 2 hold up b4 the Magna Carta.

With regards 2 Plato, he is thought 2 be the founder of Academia, a school in Athens based on the assumption that knowledge can be gathered from observation of the visible world. This is all from Wikipedia:

<>

Apparently it is subject 2 controversy which part can be attributed 2 either philosopher, although Plato was Socrates’ scholar, there4 u’ll have 2 bear the mention of them both in this context.

<< In several dialogues, most notably the Republic, Socrates inverts the common man's intuition about what is knowable and what is real. While most people take the objects of their senses to be real if anything is, Socrates is contemptuous of people who think that something has to be graspable in the hands to be real. In the Theaetetus, he says such people are "eu a-mousoi", an expression that means literally, "happily without the muses" (Theaetetus 156a). In other words, such people live without the divine inspiration that gives him, and people like him, access to higher insights about reality. Socrates's idea that reality is unavailable to those who use their senses is what puts him at odds with the common man, and with common sense. Socrates says that he who sees with his eyes is blind, and this idea is most famously captured in his allegory of the cave, and more explicitly in his description of the divided line. The allegory of the cave (begins Republic 7.514a) is a paradoxical analogy wherein Socrates argues that the invisible world is the most intelligible ("noeton") and that the visible world ("(h)oraton") is the least knowable, and the most obscure. >>

Interesting that poet, philosopher and statesman Vaclav Havel, asked years ago on the CBC if he ever felt like a character in his own play, he answered something along the lines of: “No, rather like a character of somebody else’s play, in a an obscure, absurd theatre.” As It Happens had a segment on the occasion of his passing in the program on Monday: http://www.cbc.ca/video/news/audioplayer.html?clipid=2178438657

Now this is strangely close 2 the explanations Wikipedia offers about the Greek father of all teachers:
Precessing the concept of wisdom from observation, << Socrates says in the Republic that people who take the sun-lit world of the senses to be good and real are living pitifully in a den of evil and ignorance. Socrates admits that few climb out of the den, or cave of ignorance, and those who do, not only have a terrible struggle to attain the heights, but when they go back down for a visit or to help other people up, they find themselves objects of scorn and ridicule. According to Socrates, physical objects and physical events are "shadows" of their ideal or perfect forms, and exist only to the extent that they instantiate the perfect versions of themselves. Just as shadows are temporary, inconsequential epiphenomena produced by physical objects, physical objects are themselves fleeting phenomena caused by more substantial causes, the ideals of which they are mere instances. For example, Socrates thinks that perfect justice exists (although it is not clear where) and his own trial would be a cheap copy of it. The allegory of the cave (often said by scholars to represent Plato's own epistemology and metaphysics) is intimately connected to his political ideology (often said to also be Plato's own), that only people who have climbed out of the cave and cast their eyes on a vision of goodness are fit to rule. Socrates claims that the enlightened men of society must be forced from their divine contemplations and be compelled to run the city according to their lofty insights. Thus is born the idea of the "philosopher-king", the wise person who accepts the power thrust upon him by the people who are wise enough to choose a good master. This is the main thesis of Socrates in the Republic, that the most wisdom the masses can muster is the wise choice of a ruler. The word metaphysics derives from the fact that Aristotle's musings about divine reality came after ("meta") his lecture notes on his treatise on nature ("physics"). The term is in fact applied to Aristotle's own teacher, and Plato's "metaphysics" is understood as Socrates' division of reality into the warring and irreconcilable domains of the material and the spiritual. The theory has been of incalculable influence in the history of Western philosophy and religion. >>

Now these days, some very progressive citizens amongst us, nuevo-republicans if u so want, take that 1 step further:

“(…) upon corruption of that system, it is up to the individuals to protect their own rights, and those of their neighbors; that a democratic government derives its just power from the people, but corporations do not seek consent to extract wealth from the people and the Earth; and that no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power.”

What we have coming is feudalism, @ best – and thank u very much, all my history teachers, 2 explain and illustrate that 2 me when I was a student. Feudalism is slavery, and the republic emerged as the free man’s alternative, as in France, as in America.

Now I say:
If nobody owns the land, then why would you fight 4 it?

Instead, the question turns in2: how can we share it and make sure we leave our kids more than we received from our parents? What is the definition of “more”?

This movie I watched recently provided an additional angle on the ides of control. Thank u very much 4 your attention!